- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,402
- Reaction score
- 75,294
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yes, unless a valid medical reason is provided.
Well, I see you have diverted from "the only children affected" falsehood....to "authoritarianism". Keep moving those goalposts without even having to remember what your argument was.
Those un-immunized children are not being forced, they don't have to go to a public school.
Sure, those intentionally not being immunized bear no responsibility for spreading a disease.Not changing the goalposts at all - my point remains valid. If the vaccine doesn't work for a particular child, that's not the fault of the child who wasn't innoculated.
Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be its name, amen) swooped in and spread measles!Perhaps, if they contract the illness, they got it from another vaccinated child who was unfortunate enough not to have it work or they got it from one of the children who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons.
The whole idea is to reduce the chances of anyone contracting these diseases, not to keep reducing ones argument to absurdity. But keep relying on absolutes to justify your positions. Perfection would be wonderful, but to argue that since perfection is not achievable we should keep weakening the (extremely successful) immunization scheme to placate a few irrational contrarians is absurd.Are you also banning the vaccine didn't take and the medically excused children from attending schools?
Yawn...But hey, I appreciate that as a card carrying liberal, you're mandated to the will of the collective and you're all for someone else running your life and you also like dictating how other people live their lives, so you're fine with it - others aren't. We'll see how this plays out in the courts.
Yes, public health overrides your philosophical or religious beliefs.
Recently, California passed a law requiring all children to be fully vaccinated in order to attend public and private schools. Otherwise they MUST be home-schooled. That makes it one of only three states with this requirement and no “personal-belief” exemption.
The question is: Should children be compelled to vaccinate in order to attend school or not. Please explain your reasoning.
I guess religious freedom really doesn't matter after all then, if you force people to act against their beliefs. Hmmmm where have I heard that before? Also what about the problem of kids being allergic to some vaccination ingredients? I know people allergic to eggs can't have the flu vaccine. My youngest cousin, who turns 3 next month, is allergic to just about darn near everything, including eggs. Its a catch 22 for some people.
No. It's not placing anybody at risk except those who refuse to be vaccinated. It's nanny state mentality at the expense of parental rights. I support vaccinations, think people like Michelle Bachman are nuts and think everyone should get them but the government has no business being a dictatorship in the United States....except when other people's safety or expense is at risk.
I guess religious freedom really doesn't matter after all then, if you force people to act against their beliefs. Hmmmm where have I heard that before? Also what about the problem of kids being allergic to some vaccination ingredients? I know people allergic to eggs can't have the flu vaccine. My youngest cousin, who turns 3 next month, is allergic to just about darn near everything, including eggs. Its a catch 22 for some people.
I do not think we have much choice here, the answer has to be yes.
We are sending our kids to school and they will be exposed to whatever the others there have, and this all becomes a matter of public safety for these kids. There are too many communicable diseases have been largely eradicated or at least put under control by immunization. I understand those with a medical condition of some sort may not be able to participate in immunization and an opt out is reasonable for those cases, but that should not be extended to those of philosophical or "religious" beliefs wanting to opt out for whatever reason. It goes against my Libertarianism, but our schools are nothing more than a Petri Dish pooling of whatever they all have and then bring to school to share. There is not enough legitimate reasoning to place kids in danger because a handful of parents want to opt out of Hepatitis B, or Influenza, or other immunizations for their kids.
Answering my own post...I posted this in another thread earlier this year. It still applies, IMO, and this is why I fully understand the reasoning behind making it mandatory, but still cannot bring myself to endorse it...
"...we have done very well with vaccines thus far. No complaints from me. I am a pro-vaxxer, not an anti-vaxxer. But... what if some vaccine in the future IS dangerous? Is the entire population screwed because the mandatory vaccine made things even worse? We've had good results so far, but will we always have good results? We're human, we simply don't do everything right.
The government does have a healthy history of lying to us. 1950s atomic testing being just one prime example. I said it once and I'll say it again, we have had good results thus far, but if something did go wrong, would they be honest with us?"
No. It's not placing anybody at risk except those who refuse to be vaccinated. It's nanny state mentality at the expense of parental rights. I support vaccinations, think people like Michelle Bachman are nuts and think everyone should get them but the government has no business being a dictatorship in the United States....except when other people's safety or expense is at risk.
Anytime we have to weigh public health and the safety of cancer patients, infants, and those that are immune compromised and thus depend on herd immunity, against idiots, well I am going to go with public health and the safety of cancer patients, infants and the immune compromised. If you want to be an idiot and not vaccinate your kids, then you are free to do so, but you are going to have to home school them.
For public schools yes but I believe the state has no right to mandate this for private schools. That being said every kids unless they are allergic should be vaccinated.
I guess religious freedom really doesn't matter after all then, if you force people to act against their beliefs. Hmmmm where have I heard that before? Also what about the problem of kids being allergic to some vaccination ingredients? I know people allergic to eggs can't have the flu vaccine. My youngest cousin, who turns 3 next month, is allergic to just about darn near everything, including eggs. Its a catch 22 for some people.
Answering my own post...
One thing in favor of mandating it is that I do not believe for one second that all the people claiming religious objection really have religious objection. For many, I'd bet more than half don't have religious objection, it's just a ruse to keep people from questioning them.
I have no way to prove this, of course, just a gut feeling.
Recently, California passed a law requiring all children to be fully vaccinated in order to attend public and private schools. Otherwise they MUST be home-schooled. That makes it one of only three states with this requirement and no “personal-belief” exemption.
The question is: Should children be compelled to vaccinate in order to attend school or not. Please explain your reasoning.
Well, infants don't go to public school. At risk cancer patients and other "immune compromised" can be "home schooled" for THEIR safety if you REALLY want to eliminate their risks. That leaves vaccinated students, and the children of anti-vaxxers who pose no risk to the vaccinated.
Of course if you insist that's too much of an imposition and you'd prefer to "punish" anti-vaxxer families for their "selfishness" then the law should allow those parents to set up their own private school rather than limit them to home-schooling. Just saying.
The post quoted above is a perfect example of the ignorance in the anti-vax movement.
Actually, it places anyone at risk that is currently immune compromised when you refuse to vaccinate your kids. For example, infants, and cancer patients depend upon herd immunity because they are either too young to get all vaccinations or in the case of a cancer patient, immune compromised and thus cannot be vaccinated until they are in remission. Thus they depend upon everyone else being vaccinated. It is a public health issue.
There are non-egg-derived vaccines, available upon request from your doctor. And even egg-derived vaccines are safe if you have allergies, you may just get a mild skin reaction.
Since this mandate is special to the school campus environment, my response was how it affected those in the classroom. It's not likely that infants, geriatric patients, etc. would be in schools.
Another great companion to this and other public school mandates is to offer school choice options so that there can be cost neutral alternatives to families who prefer to not have the government exercise more authority on how they choose the raise their kids on a wide range of issues, but that's another topic.
And I care about the ACLU why?